The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently held that the Truth in Lending Act’s (“TILA”) disclosure and rescission provisions do not apply to a loan modification in which there is no extension of new credit. See Lucore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2019 WL 2373499 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2019). In the case, plaintiff received a loan in 2006 that was secured by a deed of trust against his home.
The New York Supreme Court, Kings County recently found that a restrictive covenant could constitute an encumbrance under a title insurance policy but nonetheless dismissed an action brought by an insured because the insured was aware of the covenant before purchasing. See 50 Clarkson Partners LLC v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 516966-2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 30, 2019). Plaintiff purchased the subject property in 2017, and defendant issued a title insurance policy in connection with the purchase.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a claim brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) accrued on the date the debt collector froze the wrong person’s bank account, not the date the person had “notice” of the violation. See Benzemann v. Houslanger & Assocs., PLLC, 2019 WL 2079006 (2d Cir. May 13, 2019). In 2008, the defendant debt collector sent a restraining notice to a bank regarding a judgment against an individual named Andrew Benzemann (the “Debtor”).
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana recently held that the lack of access of an insured property did not render title to the property unmarketable, but found that the title insurance company must either cure the access issue or pay the diminution of value caused by the lack of access. See BJD Properties, LLC v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 2019 WL 2061972 (W.D. La. Mar. 29, 2019).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a coverage action brought against a title insurance company and found that the insured’s claims were barred under Exclusion 3(a) because the insured had created them through its agreement with third parties. See 3 W. 16th St., LLC v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1397135 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed an action against a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because the debt collector had used safe harbor language approved by the Second Circuit. See Taubenfliegel v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2019 WL 1934519 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019).
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed a lower court and held that the court was required to hold oral argument on an opposed motion for final judgment foreclosing a tax sale certificate. See Clarksboro, LLC v. Kronenberg, 2019 WL 2127274 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 16, 2019). In the case, plaintiff brought an action to foreclose a tax sale certificate in 2016. It named defendant because defendant held a prior tax sale certificate on the property.
New York’s Second Department Appellate Division recently affirmed that an insured owner was not entitled to coverage under its title insurance policy for an action in which the insured was accused of fraudulently altering the deed. See Queens Org., LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2019 WL 2030322 (2nd Dept. May 8, 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently found that the United States of America could foreclose on a tax lien despite the fact that it had misspelled the debtor’s name in the lien and, due to this misspelling, the purchaser of the property was unaware of the lien. See United States v. Z Inv. Properties, LLC, 921 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2019).
On April 29, 2019, Governor Murphy signed a package of bills into law relating to the residential foreclosure process. These bills represent a sweeping reform to how lenders must prosecute residential foreclosures going forward. The bills include:
